MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414946445 · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.134379

Water tracer model-assessed contributions of source waters to changing circumpolar Arctic terrestrial evapotranspiration and river discharge

2025· article· en· W4414946445 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hotaek Park, Youngwook Kim, J. J. Gibson, Tetsuya Hiyama

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Science and Technology AgencyMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyRussian Foundation for Basic ResearchJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceInnotech AlbertaSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
KeywordsEvapotranspirationSnowmeltPermafrostArcticDischargeHydrology (agriculture)PrecipitationSnowWater balance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Tracer model quantitatively separated contributions of source waters to evapotranspiration and discharge in the Arctic river basins. • Rain and snowmelt water are major sources to evapotranspiration and discharge, respectively, and discharge shows seasonally varying sources. • Rain plays a key role in driving interannual, seasonal, and regional variability of evapotranspiration and discharge. • The individual roles of rain and groundwater to evapotranspiration and discharge are increasing during 1979 to 2016. Climate change has resulted in alteration of snow cover, permafrost degradation, vegetation infilling, and precipitation apportionment across the Arctic terrestrial region, which has in turn affected the balance of hydrological processes including seasonality and interaction of snowmelt, rain, and soil water storage. Effects on Arctic river discharge have been widely observed, although relatively few studies have provided detailed assessments of the underlying causes of change, including adjustments in the timing and relative contributions of source waters (i.e., snowmelt, rainwater, soil water, permafrost thaw) and the effects of altered evapotranspiration regimes. Principal challenges have included limitations in the observational networks, which have often frustrated efforts to reliably model complex changes that are underway. This study explores a tracer-aided ecohydrological model that was used to quantitatively assess source water contributions to evapotranspiration and discharge from the circumpolar Arctic river basin, based on three meteorological forcing datasets from the period of 1979 to 2016. The model, which provides additional constraints on water partitioning using isotopic evidence, revealed that rain and snowmelt water accounted for 67% and 39% of the annual evapotranspiration and discharge averaged over the study period, respectively. Rainwater contributions to annual evapotranspiration and discharge were found to have increasing trends over the study period, whereas snowmelt water showed fairly stable or insignificant negative trends. Rainwater was determined to be a dominant source of evapotranspiration across the growing season, while discharge was sustained by seasonally-varying dominant water sources. Earlier snowmelt events also appear to have increased the proportion of snow and rain in peak discharge, with rainwater sources being linked largely to autumn storage in the previous year. We attribute higher evapotranspiration in summer to reduction in the proportion of rain and snowmelt water in summer discharge, resulting in negative interannual trend. Both soil water and permafrost thaw likely have contributed to increases in cold season discharge, although the proportion accounted for by permafrost thaw sources was mostly low. Our analysis renders a new perspective on underlying changes to source water partitioning, especially enhanced rainwater contributions, as a key driver of seasonal, interannual and regional changes in terrestrial evapotranspiration and discharge across the Arctic region.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrologySame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207